Fourteen Years for Contempt Of Court: The Case of Beatty Chadwick

You fail to recognize what is being said with the issue of quarantine. The comparison is not about the particulars of quarantine to offending the court but rather to the nature of government's ability to isolate an individual based on larger societal need.

You are reading that far too generally. The quarantine allows incarceration because the person poses a significant, imminent, and deadly threat to the health and well being of others.

I have not maintained otherwise.

Quote:

Such is not the case in this contempt proceedings. It's not even in the same universe.

You're doing it again. What words did I say above?

Quote:

The comparison is not about the particulars of quarantine to offending the court but rather to the nature of government's ability to isolate an individual based on larger societal need.

See that bold part? And yet you have leapt right back to the particulars of quarantine versus contempt.

Quote:

Quote:

Why do people get locked up for committing a crime? The need to preserve order in society whereby if a person wrongs others those others are not left to their own devices for enacting punishment.

Why do people who are contagious with communicable disease get locked up (providing they do not voluntarily isolate themselves)? Again, for the need to safeguard the well-being of society.

Read too generally, this allows the government to lock up anyone for any reason for the 'good of society'. Therefore I have to assume that specific cases require specific bars (as they do). I am complaining that in this case, the incarceration:threat:evidence bar ratios are askew, not that nobody can be jailed for contempt ever for any length of time.

Well actually, government can lock up anyone for the good of society. The question is when we determine that the good of society outweighs the worth of person's freedom who is being locked up. Broadly we seek to limit the government's capacity in that regard. Judges aren't particularly known for picking random people out who are attending court proceedings and locking them up.

Quote:

Quote:

A finding of contempt by a court resulting in being jailed is based on the notion that if you are undermining the functioning of the courts you are endangering the process by which people are disposed to allow government to enact justice on their behalf--something that gets back to people finding it more expedient to enact their own justice.

You demand that there be a trial before the person is locked up, but the person is already before an entity which exercizes the ability to have people locked up. What justification is there for some secondary process when presumably we already trust the court to exercise said power?

Because the standards for lengthy incarceration should be a lot higher than at the sole discretion of a judge. That's why we have jury trials for criminals in the first place. If 'contempt' undermines the justice system enough to warrant incarcerations up to 14 years, then the bar for which contempt is determined needs to be commensurately raised to the level of similar criminal activity.

The incarceration could have been an hour. Would you have complained then?

That it went 14 years was presumably because Chadwick was content to continue to disobey the court. You are acting like the court said, "Lock him up for 14 years." The court did nothing of the sort. It said, "You will be held until you comply," menaing that all it took for Chadwick to be free was complying with the court order.

On the fence. Presumably this is more related to your TB example where someone is deemed an imminent threat to health and safety? If you assume that it is a mental illness, as they suggest, then it's little different than other cases of involuntary confinement of the dangerously mentally ill.

Is there any particular reason why we should treat it differently? Do you not buy the 'mental illness' aspect of the case? Or the imminent threat?

My question more goes towards the relevant process rather than whether it ought to be allowed at all. What exactly must the government prove, before whom and to what standard of proof?

Presumably the same standards they use to confine anyone who is dangerously mentally ill. I've no specific reason to believe that those standards are, or aren't sufficient.

Of course, if the guy is mentally ill enough to be civilly confined, then he likely shouldn't have gone to jail in the first place, true?

That it went 14 years was presumably because Chadwick was content to continue to disobey the court. You are acting like the court said, "Lock him up for 14 years." The court did nothing of the sort. It said, "You will be held until you comply," menaing that all it took for Chadwick to be free was complying with the court order.

He's still "disobeying". He still hasn't paid, still maintains that he can't.

He should have been released as soon as it was clear that it had no coercive power.

Presumably the same standards they use to confine anyone who is dangerously mentally ill. I've no specific reason to believe that those standards are, or aren't sufficient.

This gets to the nub of the issue.

If you'll take my word for it I'll tell you that the procedural protections surrounding civil confinement of the dangerously mental ill are not nearly as rigorous as those for conviction of a felony. This despite the fact that the former is indefinite and the later is not. With this additional information can you tell whether or not you are okay with that?

That it went 14 years was presumably because Chadwick was content to continue to disobey the court. You are acting like the court said, "Lock him up for 14 years." The court did nothing of the sort. It said, "You will be held until you comply," menaing that all it took for Chadwick to be free was complying with the court order.

He's still "disobeying". He still hasn't paid, still maintains that he can't.

Yes. And?

Quote:

He should have been released as soon as it was clear that it had no coercive power.

I do not think it unreasonable to discuss when it becomes meaningless, unjust, and/or cruel to continue to hold someone on contempt charges.

If the court felt he was not complying with an order involving $2.5 million, one wonders what sentence he might have received for theft of the same value. I can find a case where a person recieved 7 years for embezzling $1 million.

You fail to recognize what is being said with the issue of quarantine. The comparison is not about the particulars of quarantine to offending the court but rather to the nature of government's ability to isolate an individual based on larger societal need.

You are reading that far too generally. The quarantine allows incarceration because the person poses a significant, imminent, and deadly threat to the health and well being of others.

I have not maintained otherwise.

Quote:

Such is not the case in this contempt proceedings. It's not even in the same universe.

You're doing it again. What words did I say above?

Quote:

The comparison is not about the particulars of quarantine to offending the court but rather to the nature of government's ability to isolate an individual based on larger societal need.

See that bold part? And yet you have leapt right back to the particulars of quarantine versus contempt.

I see the bold part, but the important part is the following phrase "the nature of government's ability to isolate an individual based on larger societal need".

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Why do people get locked up for committing a crime? The need to preserve order in society whereby if a person wrongs others those others are not left to their own devices for enacting punishment.

Why do people who are contagious with communicable disease get locked up (providing they do not voluntarily isolate themselves)? Again, for the need to safeguard the well-being of society.

Read too generally, this allows the government to lock up anyone for any reason for the 'good of society'. Therefore I have to assume that specific cases require specific bars (as they do). I am complaining that in this case, the incarceration:threat:evidence bar ratios are askew, not that nobody can be jailed for contempt ever for any length of time.

Well actually, government can lock up anyone for the good of society.

The following words that you omitted 'for any reason' were quite important to the point.

Quote:

The question is when we determine that the good of society outweighs the worth of person's freedom who is being locked up. Broadly we seek to limit the government's capacity in that regard. Judges aren't particularly known for picking random people out who are attending court proceedings and locking them up.

You're essentially repeating what I said: that specific cases for incarceration require specific bars for justice to be maintained. The fact that 'judges aren't known for randomly locking people up' isn't necessarily due to some inherent 'goodness' of the judge, but rather the justice system in which they operate. You can look at other countries and often see quite a different landscape.

So, is it really in your opinion that indefinite confinement on the word of a judge is 'good' for our society?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

A finding of contempt by a court resulting in being jailed is based on the notion that if you are undermining the functioning of the courts you are endangering the process by which people are disposed to allow government to enact justice on their behalf--something that gets back to people finding it more expedient to enact their own justice.

You demand that there be a trial before the person is locked up, but the person is already before an entity which exercizes the ability to have people locked up. What justification is there for some secondary process when presumably we already trust the court to exercise said power?

Because the standards for lengthy incarceration should be a lot higher than at the sole discretion of a judge. That's why we have jury trials for criminals in the first place. If 'contempt' undermines the justice system enough to warrant incarcerations up to 14 years, then the bar for which contempt is determined needs to be commensurately raised to the level of similar criminal activity.

The incarceration could have been an hour. Would you have complained then?

Nope, I already said that the ratio was askew, not that nobody could be confined for contempt, ever, for any length of time.

Quote:

That it went 14 years was presumably because Chadwick was content to continue to disobey the court. You are acting like the court said, "Lock him up for 14 years." The court did nothing of the sort. It said, "You will be held until you comply," menaing that all it took for Chadwick to be free was complying with the court order.

Again, you are begging the question.

You are assuming, before it has been proven in court, that Chadwick lied and committed fraud, and that he really did have the money.

Tell me, please, why it wouldn't have served justice better just to charge him with those criminal acts?

Presumably the same standards they use to confine anyone who is dangerously mentally ill. I've no specific reason to believe that those standards are, or aren't sufficient.

This gets to the nub of the issue.

If you'll take my word for it I'll tell you that the procedural protections surrounding civil confinement of the dangerously mental ill are not nearly as rigorous as those for conviction of a felony. This despite the fact that the former is indefinite and the later is not. With this additional information can you tell whether or not you are okay with that?

Then provisionally, no, in both the general and specific case.

And additionally, as I added about the specific case, if he was mentally ill enough for civil confinement, then he shouldn't have been sent to jail in the first place.

That it went 14 years was presumably because Chadwick was content to continue to disobey the court. You are acting like the court said, "Lock him up for 14 years." The court did nothing of the sort. It said, "You will be held until you comply," menaing that all it took for Chadwick to be free was complying with the court order.

He's still "disobeying". He still hasn't paid, still maintains that he can't.

Yes. And?

Why isn't he still in jail 'for the good of society'? What has changed?

Quote:

Quote:

He should have been released as soon as it was clear that it had no coercive power.

I do not think it unreasonable to discuss when it becomes meaningless, unjust, and/or cruel to continue to hold someone on contempt charges.

You fail to recognize what is being said with the issue of quarantine. The comparison is not about the particulars of quarantine to offending the court but rather to the nature of government's ability to isolate an individual based on larger societal need.

You are reading that far too generally. The quarantine allows incarceration because the person poses a significant, imminent, and deadly threat to the health and well being of others.

I have not maintained otherwise.

Quote:

Such is not the case in this contempt proceedings. It's not even in the same universe.

You're doing it again. What words did I say above?

Quote:

The comparison is not about the particulars of quarantine to offending the court but rather to the nature of government's ability to isolate an individual based on larger societal need.

See that bold part? And yet you have leapt right back to the particulars of quarantine versus contempt.

I see the bold part, but the important part is the following phrase "the nature of government's ability to isolate an individual based on larger societal need".

Which I have explained. Your rebuttal however went right back and ignored that.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Why do people get locked up for committing a crime? The need to preserve order in society whereby if a person wrongs others those others are not left to their own devices for enacting punishment.

Why do people who are contagious with communicable disease get locked up (providing they do not voluntarily isolate themselves)? Again, for the need to safeguard the well-being of society.

Read too generally, this allows the government to lock up anyone for any reason for the 'good of society'. Therefore I have to assume that specific cases require specific bars (as they do). I am complaining that in this case, the incarceration:threat:evidence bar ratios are askew, not that nobody can be jailed for contempt ever for any length of time.

Well actually, government can lock up anyone for the good of society.

The following words that you omitted 'for any reason' were quite important to the point.

Are you seriously trying to claim that my argument is unlimited despite the very clear limit I put forth?

Quote:

Quote:

The question is when we determine that the good of society outweighs the worth of person's freedom who is being locked up. Broadly we seek to limit the government's capacity in that regard. Judges aren't particularly known for picking random people out who are attending court proceedings and locking them up.

You're essentially repeating what I said: that specific cases for incarceration require specific bars for justice to be maintained. The fact that 'judges aren't known for randomly locking people up' isn't necessarily due to some inherent 'goodness' of the judge, but rather the justice system in which they operate. You can look at other countries and often see quite a different landscape.

So, is it really in your opinion that indefinite confinement on the word of a judge is 'good' for our society?

So long as the order can be appealed, I can see merits to it. I am not settled on the notion however as I can see situations where it might be unjust.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

A finding of contempt by a court resulting in being jailed is based on the notion that if you are undermining the functioning of the courts you are endangering the process by which people are disposed to allow government to enact justice on their behalf--something that gets back to people finding it more expedient to enact their own justice.

You demand that there be a trial before the person is locked up, but the person is already before an entity which exercizes the ability to have people locked up. What justification is there for some secondary process when presumably we already trust the court to exercise said power?

Because the standards for lengthy incarceration should be a lot higher than at the sole discretion of a judge. That's why we have jury trials for criminals in the first place. If 'contempt' undermines the justice system enough to warrant incarcerations up to 14 years, then the bar for which contempt is determined needs to be commensurately raised to the level of similar criminal activity.

The incarceration could have been an hour. Would you have complained then?

Nope, I already said that the ratio was askew, not that nobody could be confined for contempt, ever, for any length of time.

But the judge ordering him held did not know at the time of the order how long the order would go.

Quote:

Quote:

That it went 14 years was presumably because Chadwick was content to continue to disobey the court. You are acting like the court said, "Lock him up for 14 years." The court did nothing of the sort. It said, "You will be held until you comply," menaing that all it took for Chadwick to be free was complying with the court order.

Again, you are begging the question.

You are assuming, before it has been proven in court, that Chadwick lied and committed fraud, and that he really did have the money.

No, I am assuming the court found to its satisfaction that Chadwick lied and committed fraud. I am unaware that much ever gets proven in court in the sense that what is proven is indisputable. Our standards are invariably lower than that--beyond a reasonable shadow or preponderance of the evidence being the two most commonly talked about.

Quote:

Tell me, please, why it wouldn't have served justice better just to charge him with those criminal acts?

Tell me please what prevents him in a second trial that results from charges being brought against from this first trial from engaging in yet another action warranting yet another trial?

That it went 14 years was presumably because Chadwick was content to continue to disobey the court. You are acting like the court said, "Lock him up for 14 years." The court did nothing of the sort. It said, "You will be held until you comply," menaing that all it took for Chadwick to be free was complying with the court order.

He's still "disobeying". He still hasn't paid, still maintains that he can't.

Yes. And?

Why isn't he still in jail 'for the good of society'? What has changed?

That it has become clear to the court its power is insufficient to coerce the desired behavior. I believe the judge freeing him said as much.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

He should have been released as soon as it was clear that it had no coercive power.

I do not think it unreasonable to discuss when it becomes meaningless, unjust, and/or cruel to continue to hold someone on contempt charges.

Dude, what do you think we've been discussing for the entire thread?

That is not all you have been discussing and frankly I don't care for the implicit condescension in your phrasing--as if I have missed the point. You were asserting the need for some sort of trial for him to be held in contempt. I was addressing that issue primarily. My above statement is an agreement with you (and others) on the particulars of serving justice--that being held for inordinate periods of time is something to be avoided. One might have thought that would be agreeable to you.

But the judge ordering him held did not know at the time of the order how long the order would go.

But the judges reaffirming the decision, numerous times, after many years had passed, knew exactly how long the order had already gone on. After even a few years, the continued imprisonment was plainly intended as de facto punishment, as it was clearly not coercive.

Quote:

Tell me please what prevents him in a second trial that results from charges being brought against from this first trial from engaging in yet another action warranting yet another trial?

What are you even talking about? This "infinite regress" posture is bullshit. What is being demanded is one specific thing: the end of arbitrary judge-directed punishment in a civil court, and the start of fixed-term judge-and-jury-directed punishment in a criminal court. There's no further "regress" possible. You can't construct a slippery slope here.

Again with this stupid recursive trial fantasy you keep laying out. What the hell are you talking about? One trial for fraud charges. One set of results: guilty or not.

What happens in the first trial? Is it on hold until the results of the second trial? Because it seems that resolving it depends on the determination of him having committed fraud.

Here's the real question: If the court is enabled to look at evidence in the second trial that he has committed fraud and make said determination, why have a second trial when you are already before a court?

You claim there is no infinite regress but why even let there be a finite diversion in the first place?

That it went 14 years was presumably because Chadwick was content to continue to disobey the court. You are acting like the court said, "Lock him up for 14 years." The court did nothing of the sort. It said, "You will be held until you comply," menaing that all it took for Chadwick to be free was complying with the court order.

He's still "disobeying". He still hasn't paid, still maintains that he can't.

Yes. And?

Why isn't he still in jail 'for the good of society'? What has changed?

That it has become clear to the court its power is insufficient to coerce the desired behavior. I believe the judge freeing him said as much.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

He should have been released as soon as it was clear that it had no coercive power.

I do not think it unreasonable to discuss when it becomes meaningless, unjust, and/or cruel to continue to hold someone on contempt charges.

Dude, what do you think we've been discussing for the entire thread?

That is not all you have been discussing and frankly I don't care for the implicit condescension in your phrasing--as if I have missed the point. You were asserting the need for some sort of trial for him to be held in contempt. I was addressing that issue primarily. My above statement is an agreement with you (and others) on the particulars of serving justice--that being held for inordinate periods of time is something to be avoided. One might have thought that would be agreeable to you.

It's not condescending if you actually did miss the point, you know. I never said he needed to go to trial 'for contempt'. It was stated that his confinement was equal to, or longer, than many criminal convictions, THEREFORE, a similar evidentiary bar of wrong doing should be applied to maintain justice.

Since he was held in contempt because the judge had evidence of perjury and fraud indicating that he still had the money, then you have a perfect way to uphold justice. Charge him with perjury and fraud NOT contempt. One would think that the threat of a criminal conviction would have a far more coercive effect than an indefinite and undefined confinement, as well as adhering more strongly to our idea of justice.

If the evidence isn't enough to get a criminal conviction, then it SHOULD NOT have been enough for a 14-year incarceration for contempt. That's a subversion of justice.

This is what I have argued throughout the thread. I never said he should have had a trial for contempt before being held in contempt, but if you really care, you can point out to me where you think I said it and I can try to clarify.

Again with this stupid recursive trial fantasy you keep laying out. What the hell are you talking about? One trial for fraud charges. One set of results: guilty or not.

What happens in the first trial? Is it on hold until the results of the second trial? Because it seems that resolving it depends on the determination of him having committed fraud.

Here's the real question: If the court is enabled to look at evidence in the second trial that he has committed fraud and make said determination, why have a second trial when you are already before a court?

You claim there is no infinite regress but why even let there be a finite diversion in the first place?

Er, because one is a civil proceedings, and the other is criminal.

Completely different evidence requirement, juries, prosecutorial investigations, and so on.

But the judge ordering him held did not know at the time of the order how long the order would go.

But the judges reaffirming the decision, numerous times, after many years had passed, knew exactly how long the order had already gone on. After even a few years, the continued imprisonment was plainly intended as de facto punishment, as it was clearly not coercive.

As has been noted upthread, the coercion has to exceed the expected reward for having endured the coercion. Would someone spend a year in jail for a reward of $2.5 million dollars? I think sufficient numbers of people would answer that yes as to cause any judge to be content to continue the confinement.

Where people say yes or no enjoys some sort of distribution but notions of justice are somewhat more quantum--something is just or it isn't. You can feel that five years was too much while someone else feels it isn't yet enough. Rather than conform to PeterB's notion of justice (because I am pretty sure we are not going to leave the matter to you to decide) or any single individuals, as I noted I am quite content with putting some sort of consideration in place which limits indefinite detention as a result of contempt findings.

Quote:

Quote:

Tell me please what prevents him in a second trial that results from charges being brought against from this first trial from engaging in yet another action warranting yet another trial?

What are you even talking about? This "infinite regress" posture is bullshit. What is being demanded is one specific thing: the end of arbitrary judge-directed punishment in a civil court, and the start of fixed-term judge-and-jury-directed punishment in a criminal court. There's no further "regress" possible. You can't construct a slippery slope here.

I am not going address multiple people in this conversation. Read the reply.

Again with this stupid recursive trial fantasy you keep laying out. What the hell are you talking about? One trial for fraud charges. One set of results: guilty or not.

What happens in the first trial? Is it on hold until the results of the second trial? Because it seems that resolving it depends on the determination of him having committed fraud.

Here's the real question: If the court is enabled to look at evidence in the second trial that he has committed fraud and make said determination, why have a second trial when you are already before a court?

You claim there is no infinite regress but why even let there be a finite diversion in the first place?

Presumably the same standards they use to confine anyone who is dangerously mentally ill. I've no specific reason to believe that those standards are, or aren't sufficient.

This gets to the nub of the issue.

If you'll take my word for it I'll tell you that the procedural protections surrounding civil confinement of the dangerously mental ill are not nearly as rigorous as those for conviction of a felony. This despite the fact that the former is indefinite and the later is not. With this additional information can you tell whether or not you are okay with that?

Then provisionally, no, in both the general and specific case.

Well that's consistent at least. Now let's move back to the contagious disease quarantine. Keeping in mind that this too is indefinite confinement (given that there is no cure for TDR TB), same question as before:

What exactly must the government prove, before whom and to what standard of proof?

THERE WAS NO FIRST TRIAL. That's the entire point. The first "trial" was divorce court. That "trial" ended with judgement of 2.5 million to the ex wife. DONE. Refusal to pay due to fraud during the first trial, is a SEPARATE matter.

Again with this stupid recursive trial fantasy you keep laying out. What the hell are you talking about? One trial for fraud charges. One set of results: guilty or not.

What happens in the first trial? Is it on hold until the results of the second trial? Because it seems that resolving it depends on the determination of him having committed fraud.

Here's the real question: If the court is enabled to look at evidence in the second trial that he has committed fraud and make said determination, why have a second trial when you are already before a court?

You claim there is no infinite regress but why even let there be a finite diversion in the first place?

Er, because one is a civil proceedings, and the other is criminal.

And what is wasting the civil court's time?

Huh? The civil court doesn't sit around twiddling its thumbs while you prosecute the criminal actions, it goes about its business with the countless other civil actions that need adjudication.

Again with this stupid recursive trial fantasy you keep laying out. What the hell are you talking about? One trial for fraud charges. One set of results: guilty or not.

What happens in the first trial? Is it on hold until the results of the second trial? Because it seems that resolving it depends on the determination of him having committed fraud.

What are you talking about? The first "trial"--the divorce proceedings--are done and dusted, and a remedy decided upon (a $2.5 million payment).

Quote:

Here's the real question: If the court is enabled to look at evidence in the second trial that he has committed fraud and make said determination, why have a second trial when you are already before a court?

You claim there is no infinite regress but why even let there be a finite diversion in the first place?

Presumably the same standards they use to confine anyone who is dangerously mentally ill. I've no specific reason to believe that those standards are, or aren't sufficient.

This gets to the nub of the issue.

If you'll take my word for it I'll tell you that the procedural protections surrounding civil confinement of the dangerously mental ill are not nearly as rigorous as those for conviction of a felony. This despite the fact that the former is indefinite and the later is not. With this additional information can you tell whether or not you are okay with that?

Then provisionally, no, in both the general and specific case.

Well that's consistent at least. Now let's move back to the contagious disease quarantine. Keeping in mind that this too is indefinite confinement (given that there is no cure for TDR TB), same question as before:

What exactly must the government prove, before whom and to what standard of proof?

It should have to demonstrate that the person is highly contagious and that the infection poses a major health hazard to the public without confinement, and that confinement is the only reasonable way to mitigate the hazard.

Seems to me that the appropriate experts should be included by both sides of the argument, and a panel of medical and health experts should work out the solution, perhaps the CDC.

An advantage is that safety is the underlying reason for confinement, so if new evidence or procedures some to light that will mitigate the hazard (false positive, new treatment), then the confinement can be lifted.

There should be a review procedure in place to catch mistakes, even after quarantine has been enacted, and appropriate reimbursement in such cases.

But the judge ordering him held did not know at the time of the order how long the order would go.

But the judges reaffirming the decision, numerous times, after many years had passed, knew exactly how long the order had already gone on. After even a few years, the continued imprisonment was plainly intended as de facto punishment, as it was clearly not coercive.

As has been noted upthread, the coercion has to exceed the expected reward for having endured the coercion. Would someone spend a year in jail for a reward of $2.5 million dollars? I think sufficient numbers of people would answer that yes as to cause any judge to be content to continue the confinement.

In the abstract, they might answer yes. I'm not so sure they'd answer yes if actually imprisoned.

Quote:

Where people say yes or no enjoys some sort of distribution but notions of justice are somewhat more quantum--something is just or it isn't. You can feel that five years was too much while someone else feels it isn't yet enough. Rather than conform to PeterB's notion of justice (because I am pretty sure we are not going to leave the matter to you to decide) or any single individuals, as I noted I am quite content with putting some sort of consideration in place which limits indefinite detention as a result of contempt findings.

That it went 14 years was presumably because Chadwick was content to continue to disobey the court. You are acting like the court said, "Lock him up for 14 years." The court did nothing of the sort. It said, "You will be held until you comply," menaing that all it took for Chadwick to be free was complying with the court order.

If Chadwick could comply with the court order. The problem with this whole system is that the real possibility exists that it was actually impossible for him to comply. The court has the right to decide whether or not he can (determining such things is kind of the courts basic function) but the system needs to have a better fallback mechanism in the event that the court is wrong.

Because the court will inevitably be wrong. And in that situation, some asshole will end up in prison forever with no possible means of escape other than someone's whim. That is not acceptable exception handling. We wouldn't accept a cell phone that works fine unless you drop it, at which point it goes off like a grenade and kills you. There is a demonstrable hazard inherant in the design of this contempt system, and it should be corrected.

Quote:

If the court felt he was not complying with an order involving $2.5 million, one wonders what sentence he might have received for theft of the same value. I can find a case where a person recieved 7 years for embezzling $1 million.

On average, people serve less than half of their sentances, even for violent crimes such as rape and murder (citation on request). If Chadwick's behavior in prison was average, he would have only spent 14 years in prison from a 35 year sentance. And for old, wealthy, white-collar criminals such as this, it's likely the time spent would be closer to the tune of 10%, which is commiserate to him being sentanced 140 years.

But beyond that, he didn't embezzle his $2.5 mil. His crime was hiding it before a divorce hearing. At worst, he stole half of it from his ex wife. But depending on the outcome of those divorce preceedings, it's possible she wouldn't have gotten any of it. As such, while he may have comitted a very serious crime, it strikes me as unfair to conflate his crime with that of a straight-up embezzler.

I think its pretty simple to prevent a perverse incentive in cases like the one we're discussing. Once the defendant is found in contempt, that defendant is imprisoned in county for a relatively short time period (say 30 days), with that time span being the amount of time allowed for the defendant to make good faith efforts to correct the action/inaction that led to the contempt charge and avoid further repercussions. After said time period is up, the defendant is now charged with a criminal offense, and proceeds through the criminal court system with the trial being presided over by a different judge. This provides three benefits. One, the defendant is subject to a more firmly coercive penalty (fix it or get convicted as a criminal and sent to jail for real). Two, the defendant is now held to the standards of criminal law and justice before he/she may be imprisoned for a period of time matching a criminal conviction. Three, there is no longer the possibility of imprisoning a person for an undefined and open-ended amount of time.

In this case perhaps you could do that, but what about where there is no underlying crime other than refusing a court's order. Say, for example, refusing to testify in a murder trial?

In that case, a charge of obstruction of justice would seem the best choice. If the definition of obstruction doesn't already cover that act, I think it would be a pretty small change to extend the law to cover it.

I know what I'm proposing isn't a super simple change, and doesn't always have an obvious current criminal charge. That said, I feel that it serves the ideal of justice better than the status quo, where a contempt finding is done without a formal criminal trial even when the punishment becomes equivalent to serious criminal convictions.

But beyond that, he didn't embezzle his $2.5 mil. His crime was hiding it before a divorce hearing. At worst, he stole half of it from his ex wife. But depending on the outcome of those divorce preceedings, it's possible she wouldn't have gotten any of it. As such, while he may have comitted a very serious crime, it strikes me as unfair to conflate his crime with that of a straight-up embezzler.

The $2.5 million had already been awarded to her. So he (functionally) stole the whole lot, and it seems unlikely he'd have been made to serve 14 years for such a theft.

It's not condescending if you actually did miss the point, you know. I never said he needed to go to trial 'for contempt'. It was stated that his confinement was equal to, or longer, than many criminal convictions, THEREFORE, a similar evidentiary bar of wrong doing should be applied to maintain justice.

Then perhaps instead of addressing me as if I had missed the point you should inquire rather than insultingly offering, "Dude, what do you think we've been discussing for the entire thread?"

Quote:

Since he was held in contempt because the judge had evidence of perjury and fraud indicating that he still had the money, then you have a perfect way to uphold justice. Charge him with perjury and fraud NOT contempt. One would think that the threat of a criminal conviction would have a far more coercive effect than an indefinite and undefined confinement, as well as adhering more strongly to our idea of justice.

A number of problems suggest themselves.

The Court believes he had committed fraud. But courts do not bring charges, prosecutors do. So either we instituted a prosecutorial arm within the court system or we have to engage the executive branch of government. It does not strike me as particularly suitable to have a judicial prosecutorial office for such, but that is the only way to insure the matter moves forwward because the executive branch, being its own independent branch of government, is not compelled to pursue the matter. Even assuming they do, that means a prosecutor has to now approach the matter freshly because he is going to be taking the matter into court. So review of what materials have been referred by the first court will happen and possibly further investigation, because prosecutors do not go into court to lose. Now the matter goes before another judge (and jury). All the while the initial trial is sitting on hold as time passes for the prosecutor to do their study of the material, potentially engage in their own investigation and gathering of evidence and secure a second court date.

And while people have tossed out the terms "bullshit" and "stupid", one wonders what magic balls they possess to be able to determine no issue will arise in this second trial which warrants contempt consideration and yet another trial occur. There is a case of a woman involved in some court matter where the evidence on her laptop is relevant to the trial and she is being held in contempt for not revealing her laptop's encryption password. So set the scene here. . .Chadwick is engaged in a divorce proceeding and it appears he is trying to scam the court by engaging in fraud, so the court turn the matter over to a prosecutor and suspends its trial until a hearing can be had to determine if he has committed fraud in his presentation of facts to the court. In that second trial say Chadwick's accountant is called upon to make records available regarding how his money was handled and for whatever reason refuses (heck, suppose a love triangle and financial combined with love interests in seeing Chadwick found innocent) to provide the information which is on her encrypted machine. . . .

Normally the court would hold her in contempt. Oh wait. . .we can't hold people in contempt without trials. But what is she to be charged with? Well, obstruction of justice seems to fit. So now that second trial goes on hold, because the determination has to be held that she is indeed obstructing justice before she can actually be held in contempt and perhaps the threat of the trial will force her to do as ordered and make the information available to the second court which enables it to reach a decision on the contempt resulting from the first trial. Cue another round of prosecutorial referral and all that involves for now a third trial, while two others sit waiting (while keeping in mind that court dates are not going to be set immediately upon referral but rather as the caseload permits).

Hmmm. . .I have to wonder what case will be enshrined at Wikipedia as involving the greatest number of suspended trials.

I am sorry, but even without infinite regress is strikes me as openning the door to silliness best avoided.

Again with this stupid recursive trial fantasy you keep laying out. What the hell are you talking about? One trial for fraud charges. One set of results: guilty or not.

What happens in the first trial? Is it on hold until the results of the second trial? Because it seems that resolving it depends on the determination of him having committed fraud.

Here's the real question: If the court is enabled to look at evidence in the second trial that he has committed fraud and make said determination, why have a second trial when you are already before a court?

You claim there is no infinite regress but why even let there be a finite diversion in the first place?

Er, because one is a civil proceedings, and the other is criminal.

And what is wasting the civil court's time?

Huh? The civil court doesn't sit around twiddling its thumbs while you prosecute the criminal actions, it goes about its business with the countless other civil actions that need adjudication.

The matter before it can not be concluded because it is unknown that he is committing fraud. So that trial has to be set aside. That is what I am referring to as wasting the court's time.

You have an even shorter loopback than bible discussions. Again with this infinite contempt. Please explain to me where this is coming from. You don't find an accused murderer in contempt when he has no defense, you find him guilty and sentence him. And then when that is over he is released.

But beyond that, he didn't embezzle his $2.5 mil. His crime was hiding it before a divorce hearing. At worst, he stole half of it from his ex wife. But depending on the outcome of those divorce preceedings, it's possible she wouldn't have gotten any of it. As such, while he may have comitted a very serious crime, it strikes me as unfair to conflate his crime with that of a straight-up embezzler.

The $2.5 million had already been awarded to her. So he (functionally) stole the whole lot, and it seems unlikely he'd have been made to serve 14 years for such a theft.

But the judge ordering him held did not know at the time of the order how long the order would go.

But the judges reaffirming the decision, numerous times, after many years had passed, knew exactly how long the order had already gone on. After even a few years, the continued imprisonment was plainly intended as de facto punishment, as it was clearly not coercive.

As has been noted upthread, the coercion has to exceed the expected reward for having endured the coercion. Would someone spend a year in jail for a reward of $2.5 million dollars? I think sufficient numbers of people would answer that yes as to cause any judge to be content to continue the confinement.

In the abstract, they might answer yes. I'm not so sure they'd answer yes if actually imprisoned.

$2.5 million for staying in prison for a year? Depending on the prison (which is going to be somewhat obvious) I think I would have to give serious consideration to embezzling (were it not for my sense of right and wrong).

Quote:

Quote:

Where people say yes or no enjoys some sort of distribution but notions of justice are somewhat more quantum--something is just or it isn't. You can feel that five years was too much while someone else feels it isn't yet enough. Rather than conform to PeterB's notion of justice (because I am pretty sure we are not going to leave the matter to you to decide) or any single individuals, as I noted I am quite content with putting some sort of consideration in place which limits indefinite detention as a result of contempt findings.

so the court turn the matter over to a prosecutor and suspends its trial until a hearing can be had to determine if he has committed fraud in his presentation of facts to the court

What are you talking about? What trial gets suspended? There should be no (suspended) civil contempt trial. There should be a criminal fraud trial. Nothing should be waiting or dependent on the outcome of that trial. If he's guilty, he should go to jail for fraud. If he's not guilty, he should walk. At worst, there should then be a new civil proceedings to obtain civil measures to return the money (e.g. wage garnishment, seizure of US-based assets).

But the judge ordering him held did not know at the time of the order how long the order would go.

But the judges reaffirming the decision, numerous times, after many years had passed, knew exactly how long the order had already gone on. After even a few years, the continued imprisonment was plainly intended as de facto punishment, as it was clearly not coercive.

As has been noted upthread, the coercion has to exceed the expected reward for having endured the coercion. Would someone spend a year in jail for a reward of $2.5 million dollars? I think sufficient numbers of people would answer that yes as to cause any judge to be content to continue the confinement.

In the abstract, they might answer yes. I'm not so sure they'd answer yes if actually imprisoned.

$2.5 million for staying in prison for a year? Depending on the prison (which is going to be somewhat obvious) I think I would have to give serious consideration to embezzling (were it not for my sense of right and wrong).

Sure, it depends on the prison, but what I mean is, I think that the number of people answering "yes" in the abstract is going to be higher than the number of people answering "yes" if answering from a jail cell, even in a really nice prison.

I also think the number answering "yes" after a decade is going to be vanishingly small.

Quote:

Whom we leave plenty of things up to regarding trials and judgements.

But we don't generally leave to them the determination if someone should functionally serve 14 years for fraud.